Quote:
Originally Posted by cadmar  You shouldn't use "mind". |
Why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadmar Now, chemical release causes energy patterns in the brain. These chemical releases give us the inner feelings and desires. These also have the energy to produce the patterns. Do you wonder that your thoughts always talk aboaut your desires/wants (caused by these chemical releases).
If you stare at something and there is no desire then there will be no chemical release and therefore no thoughts or neuron patterns. |
Not so. All sensory input triggers neural activity. It's irrelevant whether or not that input equates to a desire; neural activity still occurs. Whether or not that we attend to that input depends on either top-down or bottom-up attentional processes, the former being the result of conscious processes (e.g., watching the car weaving across the lane in front of yours), and the latter unconcious (e.g., the horn of the car which almost hit you because both you and the car in front of you just ran a red light).
So it's not accurate to say "neuron patterns" only result from desire, though they can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadmar So what reads these neuron patterns? It has been shown that the inner voice also works the same muscles as when one is speaking, just that not as noticeable. The inner voice triggers the same muscles as if one speaks outloud.
When these patterns are excited. Also, the sound labels are also excited (which we call words) and are connected to the voice muscle system. |
You're focussing exclusively on verbal thought. There's a lot of mental activity which in non-verbal, not to mention unconscious.
Also, it's misleading to say the inner voice "reads these neuron patterns". The "inner voice" is the
result of particular patterns of neural activity (specifically in the language and auditory processing areas of the brain in the temporal lobe).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerDev Can consciousness be fully understood by mind ?
As mind is part of it - Can part of something understood the whole? |
As cadmar mentioned, consciousness can be described in relation to activity within the brain. In that regard consciousness
could be fully understood because consciousness is part of the mind, not vice-versa.
Of course if you define consciousness as being more than neural activity, then perhaps not, though no one has yet been able to identify consciousness either as neural activity or as something immaterial. So the real answer is: maybe.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cadmar If one can describe the functions then "awareness" and "consciousness" will not be a problem of semantics. |
That's big "if"!